> -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:57 PM > To: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jer...@marvell.com> > Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; > Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> > Subject: Re: [EXT] [RFC PATCH 0/2] introduce __rte_internal tag > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 03:14:42PM +0000, Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran wrote: > ><snip as this is getting long> > > > > I don't have any strong opinion on name prefix vs marking as > __rte_internal. > > Or combination of both. I am fine any approach. > > > > I have only strong option on not to induce objdump dependency for > checkpatch. > > For the reason mentioned in http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019- > June/134160.html. > > > > Sorry, in my haste I didn't fully adress this in your previous email > > I'm really uncertain what you mean by introducing a checkpatch dependency > on objdump here. Theres nothing preventing you from running checkpatch > before you build the library. The only thing checkpatch does in dpdk is scan > the patches for sytle violations, and for changes in the map file for > movement to and from the EXPERIMENTAL section (i.e. no use of objdump). > > My patch modifies check-experimental-syms.sh (adding an objdump scan for > INTERNAL symbols, and renaming the script to check-special-syms.sh to be > more meaningful). That script however, is not run by checkpatch, its run > during compilation of the library to ensure that any symbol in a map file is > also tagged with __rte_internal in the corresponding object). Theres no path > from checkpatches to check-experimental-syms.sh > > What I meant in my last comment was that any dependency on objdump in > check-[experimental|special]-syms.sh already existed prior to this patch.
I see. I thought your patches addressing issue related to http://patches.dpdk.org/patch/53590/ Where checkpatch.sh complaints when we add new internal driver API with out rte_experimental? That's where all the discussion started. The reason why I was saying the API name prefix to mark as internal API is that checkpatch can detect that case. Example: ERROR: symbol otx2_mbox_alloc_msg_rsp is added in the DPDK_19.05 section, but is expected to be added in the EXPERIMENTAL section of the version map > > So I'm unsure why you think checkpatches has a dependency. > > Neil
